Doubts raised about the two prices of one bus in Shenzhen, lawyer: overcharging 1 yuan also constitutes price fraud and can be claimed for compensation
On the same bus, the coin machine displayed 2 yuan, but when swiping the card and scanning the code, 3 yuan was deducted, and the invoice only had a face value of 2 yuan - during this year's National Day holiday, a scene on the Shenzhen Dapeng M274 bus made many passengers complain. The Dapeng Management Bureau of Shenzhen Transportation Bureau subsequently responded that this was an "error" caused by the unsynchronized parameters of emergency support vehicle equipment. The rectification has been completed, and the ticket price for the entire line is unified at 3 yuan. As a lawyer, what I see is not just a technical loophole, but a legal issue that all public transportation operators and consumers should take seriously: whether to refund the extra 1 yuan charged? Can it be compensated?
One car, two prices is not just an "error", how to classify it legally
According to the response from the supervisory department, the approved ticket price for M274 route is 3 yuan per ticket. Due to differences in the original route ticket price and unsynchronized coin machine parameters, the temporary support vehicles display 2 yuan for cash coins and 3 yuan for electronic payments. The operator's explanation is that the equipment was overlooked, and there is no subjective intention of overcharging. But the legal evaluation of an action does not solely rely on the subjective good faith of the actor.
Article 13 of the Price Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that when selling, purchasing goods, or providing services, operators shall clearly mark the price in accordance with the regulations of the government's price regulatory department, and shall not sell goods at an additional price or charge unmarked fees beyond the price. M274 bus route, as a government approved fare bus route, has a valid fare of 3 yuan, but the vehicle's coin machine displays 2 yuan, which is a pricing error; Electronic payment charges 3 yuan, which is consistent with the approved ticket price, but conflicts with the vehicle's self marked 2 yuan. If there are two prices for the same trip, passengers will have a perception of being overcharged for the other standard regardless of which one they pay according to.
More importantly, Article 8 of the Consumer Rights Protection Law grants consumers the right to know. The price of the coin operated machine that passengers see when boarding is the price information provided by the operator, and the operator has the obligation to ensure that this information is true and accurate. The lack of synchronization of devices leading to information distortion, even if not intentional, constitutes a violation of consumers' right to know.
Can I claim a "refund and compensation" for an extra 1 yuan? Lawyer disassembles claim path
Many passengers think it's only 1 yuan, isn't it? But the law precisely needs to give a statement of '1 yuan'.
Article 55 of the Consumer Rights and Interests Protection Law stipulates that if a business operator engages in fraudulent behavior in providing goods or services, it shall increase the compensation for the losses suffered by the consumer at their request, and the amount of the increased compensation shall be three times the price of the goods purchased by the consumer or the cost of receiving the services; If the increase in compensation amount is less than 500 yuan, it shall be 500 yuan. This is commonly known as' refund one, compensate three, minimum of five hundred '.
The question is, can this incident be classified as' fraud '? In judicial practice, the formation of fraud usually requires the operator to have subjective intent, that is, to knowingly induce consumers to make false statements or conceal the true situation. The bus company's equipment parameters were not synchronized due to emergency dispatch, and the competent department has identified it as an oversight rather than intentional. Passengers directly claim triple punitive damages, and the probability of receiving support is not high.
But this does not mean that passengers can only suffer in silence. Article 122 of the Civil Code stipulates that if someone obtains an improper benefit without legal basis, the person who suffers losses has the right to request the return of the improper benefit. If the passenger actually paid 3 yuan and the vehicle is marked as 2 yuan, the extra 1 yuan constitutes unjust enrichment for the operator, and the passenger has the right to demand a refund. According to Article 11 of the Consumer Rights and Interests Protection Law, consumers who suffer personal or property damage due to the purchase or use of goods or the receipt of services have the right to obtain compensation in accordance with the law. Any overpayment caused by confusion in ticket price labeling is considered property damage and should be refunded by the operator.
In practice, passenger rights protection can be divided into three steps: the first step is to retain payment vouchers, take photos of coin operated machines displaying prices and vehicle information; The second step is to lock the withholding subject through the billing records of Shenzhen Tong, WeChat payment or Alipay; Step three, file a complaint with the transportation authority or call 12315 to report to the market supervision department, requesting a refund of the overcharged fees. If the operator refuses to handle it, they can file a small lawsuit with the court, which has low litigation costs and fast procedures. The court also accepts cases worth 1 yuan.
The invoice amount does not match, and the tax compliance risk should not be underestimated
There is another easily overlooked detail in the news: the vehicle is only equipped with a fixed invoice of 2 yuan denomination, and passengers who scan the code to pay 3 yuan can only receive a 2 yuan invoice, which requires tearing off other denominations to make up for the difference.
Article 19 of the Measures for the Administration of Invoices of the People's Republic of China stipulates that units and individuals who sell goods, provide services, or engage in other business activities shall issue invoices to the paying party when they receive payments for their business operations. Article 22 stipulates that invoices shall be issued in accordance with the prescribed time limit, order, and columns, and all copies shall be issued truthfully in one go. The passenger paid 3 yuan but received a 2 yuan invoice, and the face value did not match the actual transaction amount, which constitutes failure to issue an invoice truthfully according to regulations.
For public transportation companies, this may pose tax compliance risks. Although bus ticket revenue usually enjoys tax exemption or simplified taxation policies, irregular invoice management may still be ordered to correct and fined by tax authorities. For passengers, invoices are important vouchers for reimbursement and rights protection, and discrepancies in amounts will directly affect their reimbursement rights. If a company is reported by passengers due to invoice issues, market supervision and tax departments can intervene separately, and the company will not only face the problem of refunding 1 yuan.
Compliance insights for public transportation operators: Emergency dispatch cannot sacrifice price compliance
This incident has reminded all companies providing public transportation services that emergency dispatch is an operational requirement, but price compliance cannot be "temporary".
Article 12 of the Price Law requires operators to comply with laws and regulations, implement government guidance prices, government pricing, and statutory price intervention measures and emergency measures formulated in accordance with the law. Bus fares fall within the scope of government pricing, and operators have no right to change them on their own. When temporarily dispatching vehicles, it is necessary to synchronize the calibration of the charging system parameters to ensure that the prices displayed on coin operated machines, card swiping machines, and scanning devices are consistent, and consistent with the approved ticket prices and station signs.
From the perspective of compliance management, it is recommended that public transportation companies establish three mechanisms: first, the price verification process for emergency vehicles before they go online, which is confirmed by both the dispatch and ticketing departments; The second is the management of accompanying invoices, providing sufficient invoices based on actual ticket prices; The third is a fast response channel for passenger complaints. If abnormal ticket prices are found, immediate suspension and rectification will be carried out, and overpayments will be refunded proactively to avoid the case escalating into a group consumption dispute.
For passengers, there is no need to give up their rights just because the amount is small when encountering similar situations. Retaining evidence, filing complaints in accordance with the law, and filing lawsuits when necessary are not only to safeguard one's own rights and interests, but also to promote the improvement of public service quality. Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm has long been concerned with consumer rights protection and public transportation compliance. It can provide rights protection consultation for passengers, as well as legal support for fare compliance, invoice management, and emergency plans for transportation companies. Behind 1 yuan is the bottom line of price rule of law, which deserves everyone to take seriously.
